Huge Fuss, didn't even make it a year.

Forums › Off topic › Huge Fuss, didn't even make it a year.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

6889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3363

Trusted

Subscriber

#1093029 21-Jul-2014 14:14

freitasm: Show me hetero couples that would go for "civil unions" or even know that this was an option...

I don't know what a 'hetero couple' is, but I don't see why we need to duplicate civil unions just because some people don't like the name 'civil union'.

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 31

#1093036 21-Jul-2014 14:23

jonathan18: Umm, thought this thread had died, which wasn't necessarily a bad thing!

rossmnz:
Secondly, everyones opinion is equally valid, it doesnt matter what that opinion is. Last I checked we lived in a democracy - despite this legislation being passed without a referendum.

Cheers
Sure, everyone has the right to have an opinion, but in the end I'd not go as far to say that everyone's opinion is equally valid. A soundly argued position with strong evidence is, in my opinion(!), more "valid" than some off-the-cuff remark that hasn't been thought through properly.

Discounting arguments about various political voting systems etc is the uninformed opinion any less powerful than the professors opinion when they both are entitled to one single vote?

alasta:
freitasm: Show me hetero couples that would go for "civil unions" or even know that this was an option...

I don't know what a 'hetero couple' is, but I don't see why we need to duplicate civil unions just because some people don't like the name 'civil union'.

Most people now refer to "marriage" and "same-sex marriage" from what I have observed. Still kinda scratching my head about what was actually achieved with this legislation to this respect, if anything?

The force is strong with this one!

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1093073 21-Jul-2014 14:53

rossmnz: Most people now refer to "marriage" and "same-sex marriage" from what I have observed. Still kinda scratching my head about what was actually achieved with this legislation to this respect, if anything?

Well, I haven't heard anyone referring to it as that, but that is probably just reflective of the company you keep. I'm sure there were plenty of opponents back in the day who used the term "inter-racial marriage" when laws changed.

Over time I expect this will normalise and the additional (and redundant) addition of 'same-sex' will disappear. They key is that the law now sees them as the same, whereas a civil union was legally different, and carried an inferior stigma with it.

Alasta makes the point, why not do away with Marriage and call them all civil unions. In fact, it should be the other way around. Civil unions are now redundant, however the impact of dropping Civil Unions and keeping marriage is far less. There are far less of them to 'convert', they are internationally recognised (Civil Unions less so), and are (rightly or wrongly) widely considered as superior.

Twitter: ajobbins

alasta

6889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3363

Trusted

Subscriber

#1093096 21-Jul-2014 15:11

ajobbins: They key is that the law now sees them as the same, whereas a civil union was legally different, and carried an inferior stigma with it.

In what way are they legally different? I'm not saying you're wrong, but amongst all the emotive noise around this subject I'm finding it very difficult to establish objective facts.

Alasta makes the point, why not do away with Marriage and call them all civil unions. In fact, it should be the other way around. Civil unions are now redundant, however the impact of dropping Civil Unions and keeping marriage is far less. There are far less of them to 'convert', they are internationally recognised (Civil Unions less so), and are (rightly or wrongly) widely considered as superior.

I am not really comfortable with the term 'marriage' being used in legislation because some people consider that term to refer to a lifestyle choice or religious practice which creates confusion around the state's actual role.

In a lot of ways this issue comes down to semantics because the correct course of action really depends on how one defines marriage. Much of the conflict could actually be resolved just by using particular terminology, but unfortunately the trendy urban liberals and Christian fundies participating in this debate are too belligerent to accept simple common sense compromises.

Glassboy

851 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 251

ID Verified

Trusted

#1093150 21-Jul-2014 16:14

joker97: Marriage is like swearing in of police, the prime minister, parliament, doctors Hippocratic oath, coronation, knighthood, birthday party, graduation, FUNERAL.

They mean nothing to those who don't care, but a significant symbol to those who partake in the ceremony.

The swearing in of the police and members of parliament results in that person having a "warrant". That certainly doesn't "mean nothing". You not caring that a Police officer has a warrant is pretty much irrelevant. They can still use the powers their warrant gives them against you. Same with an MP.

Glassboy

851 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 251

ID Verified

Trusted

#1093154 21-Jul-2014 16:25

alasta:
ajobbins: They key is that the law now sees them as the same, whereas a civil union was legally different, and carried an inferior stigma with it.

In what way are they legally different? I'm not saying you're wrong, but amongst all the emotive noise around this subject I'm finding it very difficult to establish objective facts.

From memory there was no real legal difference between de facto, civil union, and marriage. The law would treat you the same when you dissolved the relationship. It seems vague because our laws have to cope with all sorts of cultural traditions. Not just Anglo-Maori Christian ones. Some of these unions would have happened within the Jurisdiction and others would have happened in other jurisdictions.

Alasta makes the point, why not do away with Marriage and call them all civil unions. In fact, it should be the other way around. Civil unions are now redundant, however the impact of dropping Civil Unions and keeping marriage is far less. There are far less of them to 'convert', they are internationally recognised (Civil Unions less so), and are (rightly or wrongly) widely considered as superior.

I am not really comfortable with the term 'marriage' being used in legislation because some people consider that term to refer to a lifestyle choice or religious practice which creates confusion around the state's actual role.

In a lot of ways this issue comes down to semantics because the correct course of action really depends on how one defines marriage. Much of the conflict could actually be resolved just by using particular terminology, but unfortunately the trendy urban liberals and Christian fundies participating in this debate are too belligerent to accept simple common sense compromises.

It's relatively recently that being conjoined in a church in front of a priest is the standard for "marriage". For most of European history (outside of established cities) people would have been hand-fasted (or similar) by an important local person, and a priest would probably turn up at regular interval to sanctify all the marriages an births etc.

Even if NZ decided to call marriage "purplorting", the relevant Acts would have to talk about marriage to apply to all the married people coming to NZ as well as those purplorting locally. It's not actually worth worrying about it. Those that do, are probably bored with protesting fluoride in water, or preventing their children being vaccinated.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1093174 21-Jul-2014 17:14

alasta:
ajobbins: They key is that the law now sees them as the same, whereas a civil union was legally different, and carried an inferior stigma with it.

In what way are they legally different? I'm not saying you're wrong, but amongst all the emotive noise around this subject I'm finding it very difficult to establish objective facts.

Legal recognition overseas is the example I can think of. All commonwealth nations, for example (and others), have agreement in law to recognise the martial status of people married in other commonwealth states under the laws of those states. So, a same-sex couple married in New Zealand has their marriage recognised in other commonwealth nations, whereas someone who has a Civil Union does not necessarily have that same recognition.

Alasta makes the point, why not do away with Marriage and call them all civil unions. In fact, it should be the other way around. Civil unions are now redundant, however the impact of dropping Civil Unions and keeping marriage is far less. There are far less of them to 'convert', they are internationally recognised (Civil Unions less so), and are (rightly or wrongly) widely considered as superior.

I am not really comfortable with the term 'marriage' being used in legislation because some people consider that term to refer to a lifestyle choice or religious practice which creates confusion around the state's actual role.

In a lot of ways this issue comes down to semantics because the correct course of action really depends on how one defines marriage. Much of the conflict could actually be resolved just by using particular terminology, but unfortunately the trendy urban liberals and Christian fundies participating in this debate are too belligerent to accept simple common sense compromises.

I know where you're coming from, and you might not be comfortable with it, but the fact is that is the word in the legislation - and changing everything would be a huge task. Not to mention the fact that 'Civil Unions' are a fairly new and uncommon construct that people see as inferior. And we would have to re-negotiate all those recognition agreements mentioned above, where as sticking with 'Marriage' just works.

The same logic you apply above works in reverse. Many (more) people see a 'civil union' as a term just for same-sex couples, and would strongly oppose having their marriages converted to civil unions.

Ultimately, you would have to convince the voting public and politicians that there was a good reason to drop the term marriage in favour of Civil Union, and I see close to zero demand for that, not does it make sense (to me) to bother.

Twitter: ajobbins

rossmnz

507 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 31

#1093295 21-Jul-2014 21:06

ajobbins:
rossmnz: Most people now refer to "marriage" and "same-sex marriage" from what I have observed. Still kinda scratching my head about what was actually achieved with this legislation to this respect, if anything?

Well, I haven't heard anyone referring to it as that, but that is probably just reflective of the company you keep. I'm sure there were plenty of opponents back in the day who used the term "inter-racial marriage" when laws changed.

Over time I expect this will normalise and the additional (and redundant) addition of 'same-sex' will disappear. They key is that the law now sees them as the same, whereas a civil union was legally different, and carried an inferior stigma with it.

Alasta makes the point, why not do away with Marriage and call them all civil unions. In fact, it should be the other way around. Civil unions are now redundant, however the impact of dropping Civil Unions and keeping marriage is far less. There are far less of them to 'convert', they are internationally recognised (Civil Unions less so), and are (rightly or wrongly) widely considered as superior.

Ah yes - once again a point was made that could be seen as a slight on same-sex marriages and immediately I am slagged off for the company I keep.

So predictable.

The point Im making is that same-sex/hetero marriages are still differentiated.

So far as I can tell, only you feel that civil unions were inferior to marriages? I certainly wouldnt suggest that to anyone.

It would also be interesting to see if commonwealth countries that do not recognise same-sex marriage as part of their constitution recognise marriages performed in another commonwealth country that also happen to be same-sex. I think you will find they do not.

The force is strong with this one!

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1093320 21-Jul-2014 21:52

rossmnz:

Ah yes - once again a point was made that could be seen as a slight on same-sex marriages and immediately I am slagged off for the company I keep.

So predictable.

Who said I was slagging you off. I was simply referring to the fact that the people with which you associate clearly have a different mindset to those that I associate with.

The point Im making is that same-sex/hetero marriages are still differentiated.

...by some people

So far as I can tell, only you feel that civil unions were inferior to marriages? I certainly wouldnt suggest that to anyone.

I think this is a pretty good analogy that explains why Civil Unions were different and considered by many of those who didn't have access to marriage. I'm sure many of the white folk of the day didn't see the coloured water fountain as inferior either. It's still water, right?

It would also be interesting to see if commonwealth countries that do not recognise same-sex marriage as part of their constitution recognise marriages performed in another commonwealth country that also happen to be same-sex. I think you will find they do not.

I know you will find that they do. I skimmed through the Australian federal marriage act earlier and it was quite clear. For 'presribed countries' (Which includes NZ of course), they recognise the marriage in accordance with the law of that country of which it was solemnised.

Twitter: ajobbins

Glassboy

851 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 251

ID Verified

Trusted

#1093340 21-Jul-2014 22:01

ajobbins:

Legal recognition overseas is the example I can think of. All commonwealth nations, for example (and others), have agreement in law to recognise the martial status of people married in other commonwealth states under the laws of those states. So, a same-sex couple married in New Zealand has their marriage recognised in other commonwealth nations, whereas someone who has a Civil Union does not necessarily have that same recognition.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. As far as I know only jurisdictions where same sex marriage is legal recognise NZ same-sex marriages. Australian Federal law doesn't recognise NZ same-sex marriages unless they've changed something recently. Otherwise we'd have a steady flow of "marriage tourists".

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1093349 21-Jul-2014 22:26

Glassboy: I'm not sure what you're talking about. As far as I know only jurisdictions where same sex marriage is legal recognise NZ same-sex marriages. Australian Federal law doesn't recognise NZ same-sex marriages unless they've changed something recently. Otherwise we'd have a steady flow of "marriage tourists".

(HAGUE) CONVENTION ON CELEBRATION AND RECOGNITION OF THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGES

Australia is a signatory to and has ratified this convention.

My understanding was that there is a good flow of marriage tourists from Australia and other places.

Twitter: ajobbins

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

Glassboy

851 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 251

ID Verified

Trusted

#1093352 21-Jul-2014 22:36

ajobbins:
Glassboy: I'm not sure what you're talking about. As far as I know only jurisdictions where same sex marriage is legal recognise NZ same-sex marriages. Australian Federal law doesn't recognise NZ same-sex marriages unless they've changed something recently. Otherwise we'd have a steady flow of "marriage tourists".

(HAGUE) CONVENTION ON CELEBRATION AND RECOGNITION OF THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGES

Australia is a signatory to and has ratified this convention.

My understanding was that there is a good flow of marriage tourists from Australia and other places.

You need to Google a bit wider, Australian Federal law doesn't recognise same-sex marriage.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#1093365 21-Jul-2014 23:23

Glassboy: You need to Google a bit wider, Australian Federal law doesn't recognise same-sex marriage.

Yes, federal law doesn't, but the Hague convention looks like it may override that anyway (as was my understanding), but advice is vague. Looks like this hasn't been tested in court.

From the Parliament of Australia website:

"Attention to the issue of same-sex marriage in Australia often follows developments overseas. A growing number of countries allow same-sex marriage (currently 16) with New Zealand, parts of the United Kingdom and France most recently joining the ranks. There is an argument that the Hague Marriage Convention requires signatory countries (Australia is one) to recognise overseas same-sex marriages."

Twitter: ajobbins

Glassboy

851 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 251

ID Verified

Trusted

#1093506 22-Jul-2014 09:48

ajobbins:
Glassboy: You need to Google a bit wider, Australian Federal law doesn't recognise same-sex marriage.

Yes, federal law doesn't, but the Hague convention looks like it may override that anyway (as was my understanding), but advice is vague. Looks like this hasn't been tested in court.

From the Parliament of Australia website:

"Attention to the issue of same-sex marriage in Australia often follows developments overseas. A growing number of countries allow same-sex marriage (currently 16) with New Zealand, parts of the United Kingdom and France most recently joining the ranks. There is an argument that the Hague Marriage Convention requires signatory countries (Australia is one) to recognise overseas same-sex marriages."

Your understanding of how Governments and law works seems to be a bit vague. Conventions (Universal Declarations) don't have any force until a local law enacts the principle contained in it. If they did the world would basically be in thrall to the four permanent members of the UN Security Council.

While Australia is a signatory to the Hague convention its Federal law runs counter to it. IIRC Australian Federal law also runs counter to some of the state laws on marriage.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1093509 22-Jul-2014 09:54

We could take Govt out of the marriage /union stuff and have that a couple just announces to anyone listening that hence fourth they are a partnership. It would make a lot of other stuff a nightmare like administering the Social Security Act especially section 63.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9